Quote from Scawen :

But what does it mean, for Eyefinity to be active? Is it doing anything when you are not in full screen? Or is it just running there idle, waiting for you to go full screen? I know from my dual monitor setup that a large window on an extended desktop works OK in Windows 7 without any additional software (usable and with good frame rate though it doesn't look very nice). So this is why I am asking if Eyefinity is really doing anything in that case.

Eyefinity is somewhat different from just an extended desktop. When you switch to an Eyefinity setup you only have one virtual screen thats spans over three physical monitors. So, even the Windows desktop behaves as if you had one wide (48:9) monitor with a resolution of 5760x1080 (or slightly more due to bezel compensation, like 6004x1080 as my screenshots showed). Eyefinity doesn't "kick into action" when an application goes full screen or something like that. It's more like a screen setup I choose prior to starting LFS. The AMD Catalyst Control Center also lets you save different configurations. In my case I can easily switch between "only use middle monitor", "use 3 monitors with extended desktop" or "use Eyefinity setup".

Quote from AndroidXP :

Quote from Papa :

Not systematically. But my first try to get some "driveable" frame rate back was lowering all settings including AA to very low or even lowest values. The frame rate increased only by around 15-20 FPS. Not sure about toggling vertical sync on/off either. I might test it again though.

Vertical Sync looks like the smoking gun here, as it is turned off when in windowed mode (AFAIK it only works when the application has exclusive access to the display device, i.e. when it's full screen). Are all your monitors the same model or do you run a mix of different monitors? Are your monitors 75Hz by chance? It kinda looks like EyeFinity respectively your graphics card somehow fails to sync across your three monitors, which in non-triple-buffered applications would result in a framerate of roughly 75/2 = 37.5 fps, assuming it fails to sync and skips every second frame (might just be coincidence, though).

That said, I'm not sure if something like that is even supposed to work, since VSync basically synchronizes your application's rendering with the hardware refresh rate of the monitor, which seems kinda impossible if you have multiple pieces of hardware (that are not specifically built for this purpose), especially if they're connected via different connectors (DVI, HDMI, DP, etc.). Maybe you can define the main monitor it should sync for, though, no idea.

But even more important, are you sure this is caused by 0.6H? What does your fullscreen framerate look like in 0.6G?

I am using 3 60Hz monitors of the same kind which are connected via DVI and MiniDP(-to-DVI using active adapters). This setup has been working perfectly for two years including LFS until 0.6H with stable frame rates of at least 80 FPS.

At times I even ran a LFS dedicated server and TS Server in windows on a separate fourth screen which was also driven by the same graphics card via HDMI without trouble (FPS dropping to 60-70 maybe). I didn't change any in-game settings either until I ran into the discussed problems trying out 0.6H and the new WE1 for the first time.

Anyway, I will look at VSync and AA settings again.

Quote from Scawen :

Have you had any other problems (I mean when using other software, not LFS) with the frame rate of Eyefinity in full screen mode?

Well, I haven't really tried to run other games in a window when the frame rate was low since I didn't see any connection between full screen mode and low frame rate either, nor had I any FPS values for comparison like I have now with 0.6F and 0.6H.

Quote from Scawen :

Am I right to assume that Eyefinity is only active in that one case - full screen on multiple monitors? And it is only in that case that there is a loss of frame rate? Could there be a problem with Eyefinity and DX9... something like that?

No, I switched between full screen mode and windowed mode while Eyefinity was active all the time (also when the screenshots were taken). When pressing Shift+F4 the frame rate increases/decreases by ~100 FPS instantaneously.

Quote from Scawen :

Sorry if I have missed you saying this, but have you tried with Antialiasing on/off and with Vertical Sync on/off?

Not systematically. But my first try to get some "driveable" frame rate back was lowering all settings including AA to very low or even lowest values. The frame rate increased only by around 15-20 FPS. Not sure about toggling vertical sync on/off either. I might test it again though.

Quote from Scawen :

Quote from Papa :

I average now like 30 FPS on WE1 with frames really jumping from 15-40 back and forth while going around the track (while still running LFS at 5760x1080 and full detail as before). Lowering all the details didn't really lead to significantly increased FPS (around 10-15 FPS maybe).

When switching to windowed mode I steadily gain ~100 FPS. So I went back to maxed out settings and run LFS having 100-160 FPS at WE1 in the largest possible window that spans over all three screens. While windowed mode is somewhat ugly, at least racing is possible again (regardless of graphic details).

Maybe also an option for other people who can live with these minor flaws. Or even a hint on what may be the problem here.

So you are saying that, in full screen mode on 3 screens you have a low frame rate, but with a large window extended to 3 screens, your frame rate is fine?

Exactly, in a large window I get high frame rates (~100-160) and in full screen mode the frame rate is low (~20-40). See also the attached screenshots.

Quote from Scawen :

Which version of Windows are you using? On XP it was possible to go full screen on 3 monitors, but since XP, my understanding is that it isn't possible except by using special software (probably supplied by your graphics card manufacturer).

I am using Windows 7 (64-bit) and AMD Eyefinity for full screen on 3 (physical) monitors.

Quote from Papa :

I will test whether I get the same results with one screen at 1920x1080 later this week.

Well, I tried now. As one could expect, the frame rate is pretty decent, no matter which settings I use in 1920x1080 (FPS always above 110, windowed and full screen). Still, the average frame rate is about 70-80 FPS higher and the maximum frame rate about 100 FPS higher when in windowed mode.

Quote from Scawen :

Seems a bit like this:

Before 0.6H: "Why do you insist on making LFS run on a Casio wristwatch from the 1980s?"

After 0.6H: "OMG this is impossible, I don't have a Cray supercomputer!"

Sure enough, I'd never complain about increasing the level of detail in LFS. Why should I? But maybe my luxury problem is somewhat related to the problems people have when running LFS on (older) laptops (as I did for 7 years without any trouble, btw).

Cheers,
Dennis

PS: My system specs are: i5-3570K, 16 GB RAM, AMD Radeon 7950 Boost Clock 3GB, Win7-64bit

At first I thought it was a problem WITH recent drivers since I updated to the latest drivers not too long ago. So I installed some older drivers again which didn't lead to any difference at all.

I will test whether I get the same results with one screen at 1920x1080 later this week.

I can recommend these: http://www.motedis.com/shop/Friends-of/Sim-Rig/KPCR-Piez-RIG-Expert::866.html

Quote from Papa :

I also faced some FPS drop trouble when first trying out 0.6H and the new Westhill environment today. I was running LFS on a AMD Radeon 7950 at 5760x1080 and full detail with FPS never really dropping below 80 before, but today encountered some serious FPS drops to below 20. Even lowering details didn't really help much. It's not only Westhill, but on other tracks FPS seem to be significantly lower as well.

Well, I haven't been looking to deep into what's going on on my machine, CPU (quad-core i5-3570K btw) and GPU-wise. I was just surprised about how huge the difference in FPS was going from 0.6F to 0.6H, not only in Westhill.

I average now like 30 FPS on WE1 with frames really jumping from 15-40 back and forth while going around the track (while still running LFS at 5760x1080 and full detail as before). Lowering all the details didn't really lead to significantly increased FPS (around 10-15 FPS maybe).

When switching to windowed mode I steadily gain ~100 FPS. So I went back to maxed out settings and run LFS having 100-160 FPS at WE1 in the largest possible window that spans over all three screens. While windowed mode is somewhat ugly, at least racing is possible again (regardless of graphic details).

Maybe also an option for other people who can live with these minor flaws. Or even a hint on what may be the problem here.

Quote from Abone :

Quote from luki97 :

Quote from Abone :

Scawen, FPS still drop in new Westhill. I think you do not want to fix it... Good luck

Well there are fps drops still. I didn't make full tests of 0.6h and im not sure if you devs made some improvement on this thing but for a first look i think (but can't be 100% sure without full testing) there is no more game freezes (at least for me) in those 3 places i've mentioned.

here fps drop in the same places and another thing I did not mention ( fps in normal track, track x or y are the same) i dont have this problem on old tracks this happen only in new westhill.

i dont really understand why

I also faced some FPS drop trouble when first trying out 0.6H and the new Westhill environment today. I was running LFS on a AMD Radeon 7950 at 5760x1080 and full detail with FPS never really dropping below 80 before, but today encountered some serious FPS drops to below 20. Even lowering details didn't really help much. It's not only Westhill, but on other tracks FPS seem to be significantly lower as well.

And online again!

Server: auto² - server
Join: lfs://join=auto² - server

Quote from McGherkin :

What, more than a proper race prepared rally car for the rallycross tracks? To me, that's the most obvious. To someone else, it could be something else which is missing.

FXR, intake restriction?

Ok, seriously, from my point of view LFS is mostly about road racing and we got pretty much everything one could want to do so: Enough production cars (FWD, RWD, AWD), enough open-wheelers and a selection of GT cars (RWD and AWD). But, for whatever reason, there are only FWD touring cars.

I do understand that there are more suitable cars for rallyecross and maybe also for oval racing, drifting or cruising than the given selection and I wouldn't mind if Scawen offered cars for every purpose, but for some close (tarmac) racing action between non-alien spare time drivers a RWD super touring car is missing the most.

Just something, an average driver like me can handle, which is still quick and challenging enough for the wider tracks and doesn't force you to torture your front wheels in order to be quick. I love the XFR, but the diff settings and tyre combinations (e.g. R3/R2) which allow for low lap times in a 5-lap race (usually not more though), result in a quite annoying driving and wear behaviour.

I totally agree with Warper (which actually costs me quite an effort to write, but, well, guess he's right this time ) and also 5TAG on their reasoning why a proper RWD super touring car is definitely missing in LFS.

This is not just another "Cars we'd like to see in Patch x.x or S3"-Thread, it's about the ONLY truly missing car in LFS.

Quote from nikopdr :

I didn't remember Blackwood was so fun with UFR and XFR

Really awesome racing with you guys today, and I do hope you'll be keeping the server up!

Well, it'll be online from time to time, basically whenever we (Warper, corsair_bs, Papa, a few others) manage to make an appointment in RL . Lately happened on a rather regularly base. Hope, we can keep it up. Guess, we'll just keep on posting here so you guys know.

PS: Sorry for double post. Obviously I am not THE most active forums user, but just remembered there was an edit function. I am getting old...

Corsair_bs and myself will join as well. Of course on auto² - Server requests for different tracks and maybe other cars than UFR+XFR will be heard as well. We'll decide spontaneously based on online user requests. We'll start off with UFR+XFR on BL1, though.

Looking forward to see you out there tonight!

Cheers,
Papa

Hey Bob,

I was trying to try out some of your tools, but none of the links of your signature seem to work right now.

Regards,
Papa

Hi Erazotropa,

I checked the code posted by Yisc earlier. As the parser mentioned, you have to look at line 1300: there's a "t" missing at the end of the line.

It is supposed to be "EndEvent" rather than "EndEven".

Greets,
Papa

PS: Make sure to have the status bar turned on (view -> status bar) when using the Windows editor, it helps finding the right line.

Didn't want to blame you for anything.

It is great work and I'm looking forward to the next version of Lapper/Pitboard!

Quote from Yisc[NL] :

That's correct behaviour of the software. The pitlane is opened when the value set with pitwindowstart is reached. If this value is blanc, the pitlane won't open. If you want to set x number of stops but not a specific window, set the window to the whole race. Like this:

Race length: 20 laps
!stops 2
!pitwindowstart 1
!pitwindowstop 20

Pitlane will open immediatly for the duration of the whole race.

I wanted to set the pit window to 1 - "last lap" automatically when using !stops command, but couldn't find a variable which gives me the actual number of laps set for the race. So for now I set it 1 -100 through

$argv=1;
Pitwindowstart();
$argv=100;
Pitwindowstop();

at the end of Sub Stops. Would be nice if $argv=100 could be replaced by $argv=$laps_race or something. I prefer to not have a pit window when none is set instead of not being allowed to pit at all.

Btw: Isn't

$pitwindow_1=$pitwindow_1-1; # Verminderen met 1 omdat de ronden waar je in zit ook goed is om te pitten

supposed to be part of Sub Pitwindowstart() instead of Sub Pitwindowstop()?

Could cause some trouble imho if you decided to set a new pitwindowstart but leaving pitwindowstop as it was.

My dutch isn't good enough either to understand what it is supposed to do, but I guess it is required to make IF (laps_done >= pitwindow_1) true in the right lap. Hope, I got that right...

PS: Is the pit lane supposed to be closed in lap 1 whichever setting for pitwindowstart you use? I added a corresponding IF (pitwindow_1 > 0) THEN Pit CLOSED, ELSE Pit OPEN in Event OnSpbSplit1() to display Pit OPEN also in first lap when pitwindowstart is set to 1 (or 0). That should also correspond with pit stop actions (Stop in first lap will cause a player_x_pitstops drop when pitwindowstart is set to 1, won't it?).

Last edited by Papa, Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:19.

Another issue:

When I set number of stops through !stops command to anything greater than 0 and no pit window is set, the pit lane doesn't open at all and I get a sto&go penalty after first lap.

EDIT: @Gai-Luron and Yisc: Great work though!

Last edited by Papa, Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:33.

Quote from nesrulz :

I have conflict with DEDI.

When I join on server as an administrator (with admin pass), I can vote to kick and ban over the list of drivers, and if I join as a guest (without admin pass) options for vote are not available.

I also noticed some kind of odd voting behaviour with LFSLapper. I configured Lapper to allow voting for restart and quali for all non-admins. Sometimes it works correctly (opening the vote/need button at the top of the screen) but sometimes, even in the very same session, e.g. after the next race, every try to vote - even by admins - is immediately cancelled.

Furthermore when this happens and I restart the race as admin with /restart command this action can then be cancelled through anybody by voting restart.

I can't reproduce this. Any clues, what causes it?

EDIT: Just noticed $InRaceVoteLapsMinMax was set to "1-0". Don't know what made me set it like this. Interesting though that the /restart command could be cancelled through anybody's vote.

Last edited by Papa, Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:56.